On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:19:09 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

>So there I go again with a missive. I don't know why I bother. I
>should be editing, or shooting or something.

Likewise, for me...;-)
BTW, I don't "go by the numbers" - I'm an "image-oriented"
and "sound-oriented" kinda guy. You'll notice, if you ever
bother to read them, that I rarely (if ever) mention test
numbers or specs in the reviews, but I do mention specifics
of what I see and hear (and I show comparative frame-grabs,
so others can at least see part of what there is to see
in the differences in the images these camcorders produce
[the motion-video shows more, of course - and I can only
comment on the sound]). You are right, in that all the
Mini-DV camcorders of similar types produce similar
images (with casual observance). They all produce at least
fair-quality images in good light, and none comes close
to producing a perfect image; BUT, to say that they all
look alike, or are of equal quality, is akin to claiming
that all cars of similar types and prices look alike or
perform the same (after all, they all get you from "A"
to "B", and they all have similar appearance features...;-)
From casual observation, yes - but that is not interesting.
If you just don't care about relative image or sound
quality, that's fine; but don't then argue that the worse/
more-expensive is somehow "better"...;-) Sure, you may
like the particular shape/color/feel of something, but
that does not make it "better", any more than liking
non-standard, non-neutral image and sound characteristics
does. For those who prefer "neutral" tools, there are
relevant differences - and, yes, some ARE better than
others, for those who have standards... (If you don't,
thet's okay, tu...;-) So, quit claiming that I often
recommend the VX2000 due to a "Sony bias" - I don't
care who makes it, but currently, it IS the best
near-$2500 camera for general video work (though, as
you point out, PARTICULAR needs may well lead you to
another model), and the VX2000/PD150 is demonstrably
better in most respects than the almost-as-expensive
GL-1 and more-expensive XL-1. If Canon ever manages to
surpass the Sony models in performance (for about the
same prices), I will be happy to say so (and then I
will be accused of having a "Canon-bias"...;-).
Other comments:
- These "handicam" camcorders have crude manual controls,
at best - but the auto controls (mostly) are quite
good on the Sony 3-chippers. You appear to agree
with this, but appear not to take advantage of
this...;-) And your comment relative to this is,
well, odd... ("You tested a lot of the features of
cameras using the auto features, which means in many
cases that you are just testing the auto features
not the camera at all."). I did try to focus the
XL-1 manually, really I did - but these really are
auto-control cameras, with manual over-rides, and
should be tested [and used] this way....;-)
- Your comments on the TRV900 are also interesting
("The only stand out in my mind is the TRV900, which
I think is awful. I think it looks very bad intercut
with anything other than the TRV900 or single CCD
material. Particularly in high contrast situations.")
I suspect you rarely bother to image-correct while
editing...?;-) The 900 is quite a good camera, and
quite easy to mix with other cameras - but it does
need image-correction to do this - as does mixing
even cameras of the same brand and model (even
these rarely match...). The Canon 3-chip camcorders,
though, have image problems that cannot be corrected
in editing - this, I think, is a problem...
- Yes, I noticed you "have seen the light" on the
VX2000/PD150, finally (I suspect we would both give
the same answer to this question, "What is the best
around-$2500 Mini-DV camera for most purposes?", but
you seem not to have noticed when (rarely, but there
are times when a few unique features warrant it...;-)
I have recommended a Canon model...;-)
- One is certainly free to select the worst products at
the highest prices, but this makes little sense to me
(jes' call me funny thet way...;-)
Anyway, "bottom line" is that camcorders do differ in
performance characteristics for those who are discerning
enough to spot them, or care; I prefer characteristics
that are "neutral", as in, "not unduly (and negatively)
influencing the look/sound of what I shoot (I let the
subject/lighting/editing-preferences do that); some
camcorders in a given price range do that better than
others; those camcorders (currently) happen to be made
mostly by Sony, at least in the compact, "handicam"
3-chip Mini-DV format; this conclusion has been arrived
at by actually comparing camcorders on tape in the same
variety of shooting conditions. If you think this is
"bias", then I question whether you have any objective
standards when it comes to choosing gear, or just
first pick the gear (based on advertising?), then "get
used to it"...;-) I think you are better than that,
but sometimes your evident "Canon-bias" does make me
wonder...;-)
Some may wonder why we persue this - but the "big
picture" is that this is a study of marketing influence,
and of what constitutes "personal choice" for different
people - an interesting area for some of us, and
one not without a larger meaning than just choosing a
camcorder model...;-)